“Under God� was added to the Pledge in 1954, by an act of Congress, to separate us from the godless commies during the Red Scare.

“In the Year of Our Lord� on the Constitution was written a couple hundred years ago, when adding that particular phrase at the end of a date was quite common (why, I don’t know...or care, really), by a person who was actually there.

So you are divining the intent of the Congress in 1954 and presuming to know the intent of the Founding Fathers in 1787? 

Fine by me. 

Why don’t we then interpret the Constitution through the prism of original intent then for all other issues?

Here’s a fleshed-out version of my quote collection. I’ve added some new quotes and some more references. All of these quotes are easily researched and I believe there is no dispute that these are truly their words.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned about the perversion of government by religion and did not wish to repeat the mistakes of nearly all governments past; theocratical tyranny. By researching these words it becomes obvious that this country is based on moral secular values and not superstitious fantasy.

Thomas Jefferson

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on a man.” [from Toward the Mystery]

“The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” [in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr]

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.” [to Horatio Spofford, March 17, 1814]

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

“History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”

It’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.�

Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might have been a historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own version: “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful,� he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814), “evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.�

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter� [letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823].

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which…thus[built] a wall of separation between church and state� [letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association, January 1, 1802].

“A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution (the University of Virginia).” [letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814]

“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisioned ; yet we have not advanced on inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” [Notes on Virginia]

James Madison

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.  What have been its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.  Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.  … What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  … we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.  … Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?  that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment [of a particular religion as the official state religion], may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? [1785; in an argument in Virginia’s General Assembly against proposed legislation to require a three-pence tax for support of religious education, in arguing his case Madison had to out-argue the greatest orator of the day, Patrick Henry, and he successfully out-argued Henry and the legislature did not approve the proposed tax]

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history” “In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.â€?

“Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support.  And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage.  This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.”

“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment’”

Although prayer groups proliferate in today’s Congress, James Madison, “father of the Constitution,� denounced even the presence of chaplains in Congress — and in the armed forces — as unconstitutional. He opposed all use of “religion as an engine of civil policy,� and accurately prophesied the threat of “ecclesiastical corporations.�

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise� [letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774].

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution� [Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785].

“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries�. [Ibid.]

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” [1819, Boston]

Thomas Paine

At the time of his death, Tom Paine was acknowledged by his peers, other founding fathers, to have accomplished more for human freedom, for the abolition of physical and mental slavery, and for the brotherhood of mankind than any other American. To Paine belongs the honor of naming our country the United States of America. He was the first to use the name in print, and it was his own creation.

Paine’s writings heavily influenced the other Founders. A freethinker who opposed all organized religion, he reserved particular vituperation for Christianity. “My country is the world and my religion is to do good� [The Rights of Man, 1791].

“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church� [The Age of Reason, 1794].

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity� (Ibid.).

“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”

“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst”

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men.” [writing to Andrew Dean August 15, 1806]

“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” [from The Age of Reason]

John Adams

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” [letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816]

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for reeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagonloads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the ‘index expurgatory’, the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine.”

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

... Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. [From “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America� by John Adams, 1787.]

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!’”

“Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism, which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents, wave succeeding wave in the Catholic church, from the Council of Nice, and long before, to this day.” [to Jefferson, Dec. 3, 1813]

George Washington

Washington never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. [from George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr.]

The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented the cherry-tree fable and in 1800 published his Life of George Washington. Washington, a Deist and a Freemason, never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.�

Whenever he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately left before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianity’s central ceremony.

“He seemed, according to the evidence, to have had no instinct or feeling for religion.” “The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington’s published letters. He refers to Providence in numerous letters, but he used the term in such a way as to indicate that he considered Providence as a synonym for destiny or fate.” (p. 142.) “Bishop White, who knew him well for many years, wrote after Washington’s death that he never heard him express an opinion on any religious subject.” “He had no religious feeling himself, but thought religion was a good thing for other people—especially for the common people. Any one who understands American life will recognize the modern captain-of-industry attitude in this point of view:” “He considered religion a matter of policy. Of that we might have been sure—knowing as we do his type of mind.” “He said nothing about religion—nothing very definite—and was willing to let people think whatever they pleased.” [W. E. Woodward]

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Treaty of Tripoli - written during the Washington administration]

Benjamin Franklin

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” [Poor Richard, 1758]

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”

“Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another.”

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects of Christianity, we shall find few that have not in turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it on the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice both here (England) and in New England.” [Ibid.]

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” [Ibid.]

“I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... not holy day keeping, sermon hearing ... of making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing Deity.” [Works, Vol. VII p.75]

Abraham Lincoln

Though not a Founding Father, Lincoln had a few things to say too…

“The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.”

“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” [letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield]

“It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” [from “What Great Men Think Of Religion” by Ira Cardiff]

Sources (incomplete):
a) Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., (1991, Madison Books, Lanham MD)
b) Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie (1974, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York, NY)
c) Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., (1991, Madison Books, Lanham MD)
d) The Madisons by Virginia Moore, pg. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill CO., New York NY)
e) James Madison, a Biography in His Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, (1974, Newsweek, New York NY)
f) The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, (republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
g) George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas TX)
h) The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC)
i) John Adams, a Biography in His Own Words, edited by James Peabody, (1973, Newsweek, New York, NY)
j) Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolf Koch, (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York NY)
k) A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., (1985, American Heritage Press Inc., New York, NY)
l) Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in His Own Words edited by Thomas Fleming, (1972, Newsweek, New York NY)
m) What Great Men Think Of Religion, Ira Cardiff (1945)

So you are divining the intent of the Congress in 1954 and presuming to know the intent of the Founding Fathers in 1787?

Well, it’s not a stretch to imagine that if the guys who wrote the Constitution meant for it to be a document that was unquestionably based in Christianity, they’d have put a few more references to the invisible sky fairy (by name) into the body text, rather than one mention as a footnote to the date.

How God (big “G") made it into the Pledge is no big friggin’ mystery either… of course you have to make a little bit more of an effort in your research than simply going to the bible or your favorite conservative websites.

Here’s a short version:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499

Religious nuts have been trying to make America into Jesusland since they landed here.  Fortunately, people like Jefferson and Madison did their best to see that it couldn’t happen - and there continue to be citizens who feel it’s their duty as Americans to dissent in order to make sure it never happens.  The Constitution is the foundation of this country - NOT the Bible, Jesus or God.

Supression of Evidence (fallacy - ask elwedriddsche)

I don’t have the time, but there are numerous other, somewhat conflicting (sarcasm) quotes from many of those same founders.  In fact, it is curious that these quotes are ALL you could come up with. 

Look, I was being sarcastic.  I think determining “original intent” is ludicrous.  As soon as the Constitution was drafted, everyone went on a rampage trying to tell everyone else what it meant.  It was purely the product of a political compromise.

However, that compromise was reached when each of the State’s in the union had their own established church.  The 1st Amendment CLEARLY did not mean that the State’s could not have their own established churches.  It CLEARLY meant that CONGRESS shouldn’t pass a law making the Lutheran Church the national church and striking down as invalid the Baptist Church (hence Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists where he used the phrase “strict wall of separation”.  Funny how Jefferson as President was jealous of the church services held in Congress and commissioned his own church services in the Treasury building.  After all, why should religion be only in the legislative branch?)

It is only now, through rulings by life tenured unelected judges that this the 14th Amendment has been applied out of its immediate context and we find ourselves with assinine rulings like the one that found the Boy Scouts to be a religious organization (huh? Which religion?  Mormon?  Christian?  Catholic?).  Of course they believe in a “god”, but that means the atheist left is forcing a false dichotomy: Either “religious” or “not-religious.” It’s all the same.  Each one of use views the world through the prism of our own philosophy.  Call it “theology” for those who believe in a God, or call it “philosophy” for those who do not believe in a God.  Same thing. 

Matters like these are settled best by our elected representatives.  Thank God Bush is in power and we have a Republican Senate and House.  Now he can stack the court for decades to come.  I wish it didn’t have to come to this, but as there are checks and balances to offset tyranny of the majority, there are checks and balances to mitigate tyranny of the judiciary.

OK… time to show my ignorance in spades here....  I’m really tired of my email inbox filling up with ump-teen notices of follow up comments to this thread. Can some one PLEASE tell me how to eliminate that feature?

And yes, I noticed the little “Notify me of follow-up comments?” box. Unfortunately, I underestimated just how many would bloat my inbox.

Any aid available for a poor Michigan boy with limited blog knowledge?

Lincoln appears to have gone through a conversion experience in the last 2 years of his life

Only if you “see with the eye of faith.”

For the rest of us, Lincoln was pretty clearly a freethinker.

Lincoln’s purported conversion

GM nominated Spocko’s collection for the FAQ - Yeah!

Rick Brady, be careful what you wish for.  Government establishment of religion (such as a state church) seems to be the kiss of death - after all, who takes the government seriously?  I mean, other than as an irritant.

It occurred to me that since the “Under God” clause of the currently fashionable version of the Pledge isn’t construed to be any particular denomination’s God, then it must be a general-purpose, public god acceptable to all denominations.  In other words, a Unitarian god.  So is the United States a Unitarian nation instead of a Christian nation?    I bet Jefferson would be cool with that.

As for “the atheist left,” what makes you think most atheists are on the left of the political spectrum?  Granted the Republican party has done its level best to drive atheists away, many atheists are very ‘conservative.’

The egalitarian principles on which this country is founded are not “Christian” principles because they are common to most religions and also espoused by ethical secularists.  That makes them “human” principles.  You could say they’re… “humanistic.”

Government establishment of religion (such as a state church) seems to be the kiss of death - after all, who takes the government seriously?

Oh I don’t want an official federal government church!  Far from it!  However, I think it should be up to the people of each state to decide.  Utah, if it wanted to, should be able to establish its own church.  I don’t see how the Constitution prevents this unless one is liberal with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

My point was that for the most part we cannot say what the “original intent” of the founders was with the Constitution, but on the issue of State sponsored religion, we can be certain.  Otherwise, State’s would not have had their own official churches for decades after ratification!  The Supreme Court didn’t strike these churches down as unconstitutional, the people of those States decided through elected bodies that they did not want those churches.

That is my point as it applies to things like crosses on public property, the ten commandments, or Under God in the pledge.  If a pentagram on public property came with a plaque that said, “The City of San Diego hereby establishes the church of Satan as the official City church” I would simply: 1) put up with the will of the majority; or 2) move to a city that is more hospitable to my beliefs. 

I would strongly object to the Federal Government establishing a specific church or denomination, even my church (I attend a nondenominational Bible church). 

But placing a cross on public land or saying prayer before Congress, or even having the ten commandments displayed in the Congress rotunda would not be a violation of a strict interpretation of the Constitution so long as it does not specify a denomination.  The cross can stand for a number of things and the ten commandments are shared by both Judaism and Christianity.  These symbols are merely representative of the judeo-Christian ethic and moorings of our nation.  Not establishment.  Because a cross is placed on a hilltop in San Diego 60 years ago as a memorial to our returning veterans and war dead, does not mean the State has hired clergy and has started administering the sacrament as the Church of the United States of America. 

Anyways.

As for “the atheist left,â€? what makes you think most atheists are on the left of the political spectrum?  Granted the Republican party has done its level best to drive atheists away, many atheists are very ‘conservative.’

Fair.  Actually, I’m very liberal when it comes to many socio-economic issues (racial equality, income segregation, housing policy, education, environment, etc).  If you read my blog, you’d find many posts challenging conservatives on some of these issues.

OK… time to show my ignorance in spades here....  I’m really tired of my email inbox filling up with ump-teen notices of follow up comments to this thread. Can some one PLEASE tell me how to eliminate that feature?

Witchfire - Make sure you’re logged-in, then go to ‘View your profile’ located by the sign-in box.  Once there you can view your subscriptions and un-subscribe to any posts you are no longer interested in.

Oh I don’t want an official federal government church!  Far from it!  However, I think it should be up to the people of each state to decide.  Utah, if it wanted to, should be able to establish its own church.  I don’t see how the Constitution prevents this unless one is liberal with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Thankfully you’re not in a political position.  Utah cannot establish a state church any more than the United States can.  State constitution prohibits that from happening.

These symbols are merely representative of the judeo-Christian ethic and moorings of our nation.

Did you read through this post before jumping in?

Spocko, re:

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.�

I have tried to trace that back to original sources without success. The best I have been able to do is find it in Six Historic Americans by Remsburg (1906). The on-line chapter on Jefferson is at

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html

and shows that the whole quote is from two separate pieces of correspondence. It does fit together nicely though.

If I have this right, all of Remsburg’s stuff on Jefferson is from a four volume work by Jefferson’s (Grand?) Nephew. I could not find on-line verification of this work at either the UVA or Library of Congress web sites. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, just I that can’t find mention.

To me secular humanism and athiesm are simply other “brandsâ€? of religion.  Whether you all like it or not, everyone has a “faithâ€? in something.

Rick, this is only because you can’t conceive of anyone not having ANY religion at all.  To take an oft-quoted example, everyone is an atheist about everyone else’s gods.  You’re just an atheist minus one.  When you realize how little you believe in Kali and how much of your life you DON’T spend thinking about Her, then you’ll understand how atheists feel about your god and gods in general.  It’s not a “faith”; it’s IRRELEVANT.  (Except when people like you try to force your gods on us.  Then we have to be aware of theism, and it’s annoying.)

It’s not a “faithâ€?; it’s IRRELEVANT.  (Except when people like you try to force your gods on us.  Then we have to be aware of theism, and it’s annoying.)

Your post has been reported to the one true Skippy.  He is not amused. 

I know I may catch all kinds of rudeness in response, but I am attempting to make an analogy here.  Having cleared this with my good friend who is gay, I see a parallel between GM’s exasperation from being exposed to theism & Christian exasperation with having to to be exposed to open homosexuality in our culture.  It appears a fair trade that if Christians have to explain to their kids why a man is kissing another man passionately, or our next door neighbors say they’re married & in love, you have to explain God to your kids.  Both are choices made by consenting adults that the other side is offended by, & are a good way of introducing the nature of choice in the world to younger children.

Interesting.  I haven’t heard of any grand scheme by the homosexual community attempting to convert heterosexuals.  Maybe you missed the part about forcing beliefs in GM’s post.

There are all sorts of delicate subjects that a parent has to explain to their children these days regardless of their belief system.  While your religion may make homosexuality a delicate issue for you to discuss it may be also be a delicate an issue with a parent that does not share your beliefs.  We can find countless examples of these situations arising in everyday society.

You have your nice big churches to play make believe in and I really don’t mind.  I don’t come to your church, you don’t witness at my house.  The problem arises with the evangelical nature of Christianity.  Atheists are not trying to ‘deprogram’ you.  You can have two-scoops of the holy spirit everyday for all I care, just stop with the persecution complex, you must accept our bullshit as the truth, and the we need to take the country back for our [insert deity] though it was never that way to begin with nonsense.  Christianity has been bastardized to such a degree that Christ wouldn’t recognize it.

I’m curious how those who are against “under God� being in the Pledge of Allegiance square that with the fact that the Constitution itself is signed “In the Year of Our Lord.�

Rick Brady- DoF and OB have eloquently stated my position, as far as praxis goes.  To be absolutely honest, however, I have to agree with you, partially, and say there is no difference in kind between having “In the Year of Our Lord” in the Constitution and saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; but there is a huge difference in degree, as DoF points out.

Before the fall of the Iron Curtain, I used to buy East German books in Hungary- they were dirt cheap (State subsidised) and often quite good. I noticed that the dates, instead of saying v.Chr. (vor Christus= before Christ), had v.u.Z. (vor unserer Zeit= before our time), the Communists having no idols before Marx.

Some people are still incensed that we have v.Chr., and A.D., and so forth, either on grounds of religion or counting accuracy.  I can’t say I’m really exercised by A.D. and B.C., although I go along with paleontologists and say the dinosaurs died out 65 Mya (million years ago), not B.C.  If one gets exercised by A.D., what about “good bye”, which is a rounded off version of “God be with you”?
A kid being forced to say “under God” every day is something else by orders of magnitude.  And as far as your idiosyncratic idea of “faith” goes,

To me secular humanism and athiesm are simply other “brandsâ€? of religion.  Whether you all like it or not, everyone has a “faithâ€? in something.

...what GeekMom said.  Now to ellie:

As far as the attacks zilch mentions, democracy IS entirely foreign to Christianity, but I think they created a republic rather than a direct democracy for that reason: they were fearful of the tyranny of an uneducated & fickle majority.

A justified fear, as exemplified by the current Administration, and Rick Brady’s gleeful

Thank God Bush is in power and we have a Republican Senate and House.  Now he can stack the court for decades to come.

Now that’s democracy in action.

The forcing/conversion is in regards to accepting homosexuality as a normal & healthy lifestyle.  This comes with expression/practice in shared public space.  Unless you think it would be acceptable for there to be legislation against homosexual PDA &/or public mention of commitments, unions, or feelings (which I suspect is not the case).  Children exhibit natural curiosity, & adults who believe they are right explain answers.

A republic is not immune to majority, it can only require a larger majority to sustain itself for a longer period of time.  This kind of administration & congress & judiciary have been delayed for almost 30 years.  The turn over in congress has been gradual since the Reagan years. The progressives of the turn of the century achieving prohibition after a long fight, & it was in force for awhile until the majority changed their minds.  So whatever unreasonableness is legislated, it must be discovered in practice before the majority turns against it.

The forcing/conversion is in regards to accepting homosexuality as a normal & healthy lifestyle.  This comes with expression/practice in shared public space.  Unless you think it would be acceptable for there to be legislation against homosexual PDA &/or public mention of commitments, unions, or feelings (which I suspect is not the case).

Deadscot already answered this perfectly, and it’s a bit exasperating to have to point out the obvious once more, but I guess I’m a glutton for punishment (not the only one here).  Ellie, can you honestly say there’s no difference between homosexuals kissing in public and Christians inserting their religion into public school biology textbooks, or forcing kids to say “under God” (to mention just two examples)?  A fairer tradeoff would be- ok, no homosexual kissing in public, no mention of God in public (no crosses, churches, etc.) Is that what you’d prefer?

I see a parallel between GM’s exasperation from being exposed to theism & Christian exasperation with having to to be exposed to open homosexuality in our culture.

What DS said. And not to forget all the hate speech and hate crimes that homosexuals reasonably don’t want to be exposed to? Out of curiosity, how many Christian homosexuals are there?

Which takes us back to opening post… I couldn’t care less about religion in school if I could trust Christians in particular not to proselytize.

Oh, and Rick - be careful what you ask for. You may come to call it the good old times when all the different types of Christians could make common cause against the atheists.

Part of the problem with “In the year of our Lord” is that it’s so deeply entrenched as a common measurement...Many foreign countries have imported the Gregorian calendar.  Most scholars have converted it to BCE and CE (Before the common era and Common era) but it’s hard to change it altogether.  To me, that’s more of a politically correct thing.  Long ago, it was perfectly acceptable to say “colored people” but now it is not.  Likewise, people of any religion living in that time period considered in the year of our Lord to be simply “what you called it” without any religious overtones.  The constitution is an historical document.
Under God, however, is not to historical, and is more about pledging your life to a cause than dating a document.  Just looking at the context should tell you what the differences are!

As for Rick moving to a “more hospitable” place when confronted with a pentagram (which, btw, is a pagan symbol, not a devil symbol):
Assuming that its not for proselytization
-Why would you need to move?
I mean, if we felt the need to move because of a state endorsed church, isn’t that contrary to the freedom and justice for all bit?  Freedom from persecution?
Also, what would be the point of putting it up there, if not for proselytization?  Why else would they cover the titties on Justice?

If a pentagram on public property came with a plaque that said, “The City of San Diego hereby establishes the church of Satan as the official City church� I would simply: 1) put up with the will of the majority;

With all due respect, you’re only saying that because you’re in a majority.  I’d like to see you ACTUALLY confronted with minority status.
As minorities, we’re clearly not inclined to put up with your will.  Also, I believe that the goal of good legislation and policy is to allow as many people as possible to live in the way they see fit, so long as it not impose on others’ rights.  Going with the majority does not really cover that base in this situation.  (Or in most, really...)

...so long as it does not specify a denomination.  The cross can stand for a number of things and the ten commandments are shared by both Judaism and Christianity.  These symbols are merely representative of the judeo-Christian ethic and moorings of our nation.  Not establishment.

-So what, judeo-christian is ok, but pentagrams are cause to move?  PS, what Deadscott said.
And no denomination?  First of all, Judaism is not a denomination.  Secondly, it had little to no influence on the constitution as far as I’m aware.  We all know that when the ten comm. appear on state property that they are the christians’ ten.
Plus, not allowing endorsement of a particular denom. doesn’t really soften the assness of a state church.

Because a cross is placed on a hilltop in San Diego 60 years ago as a memorial to our returning veterans and war dead, does not mean the State has hired clergy and has started administering the sacrament as the Church of the United States of America.

That is true, but I think the things you’re mentioning all have varying degrees of religiosity.  And, small things can lead to big messes.

Besides all that, think about what would be SO WRONG with state sponsored religion.  “Now entering Ohio, back asswards fundie state of Doom.  We elect our governors for their last names without understanding what kind of retards they are because God tells us to.”

I really don’t want to live in ANY state if I have to pick a flavor based on my religion or lack thereof.  Talk about divisiveness.  You wanna split this country up even more and encourage ignorant isolationism?  That’s the way to do it. 

And to Ellie - yeah, there’s a lot I’ll have to explain to my kids.  And one of them is going to be to avoid the fundies like the plague.
The truth is, homosexuals are people.  You could have said the same thing 50 years ago about black people riding the bus--that they were forcing you to accept them.  But the truth is, people are not the same as ideology.  Accepting the existence of people without feeling compelled to become just like them is not comparable to accepting an ideology that’s been crammed down your throat.  Fullstop.  Gay men and women do not come to your house and stick their nose into your life bearing pamphlets on the salvation of fisting and santorum.  When they do, give me a call.  I will probably laugh and dance with glee.

PS, love how you dropped that gay friend comment, it suddenly makes you credible.

Gay men and women do not come to your house and stick their nose into your life bearing pamphlets on the salvation of fisting and santorum.

I almost wet my pants. Bonus points for proper use of ‘santorum’.

I know I may catch all kinds of rudeness in response, but I am attempting to make an analogy here.

Your analogy doesn’t quite hit the mark.  If you were having to explain homosexuality to your kids because they were being required to recite “homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality,” every day at school; or their teacher was distributing flyers discussing “Gays throughout history,” you’d have a point.

As a parent, I *welcome* the opportunity to explain things to my child.  It helps her to learn and grow and realize that she lives in a world full of very different people - some of whom feel they’re justified in trying to “bring her to Jesus.” Or failing in that, calling her and her parents names and ruining school events for her by playing the “I’m offended, in the name of Jesus” card, and scaring school officials into changing things so as not to risk complaints and/or litigation.

I have to admit, however, that I’m glad she’s now 13 and smart enough to understand that Jesus freaks are everywhere, including in the White House and that they’d be more than happy to return this country to the kind of place where Jesus is more important than individual liberty.  More glad am I still that she’s not buying it, because she sees and understands how very un-Christ-like most of those people who call themselves Christians really are.

More glad am I still that she’s not buying it, because she sees and understands how very un-Christ-like most of those people who call themselves Christians really are.

Ah, but those are not True Christians^TM.

ellie, the difference between homosexuality and religious beliefs is huge.  Gays don’t try to talk other people into becoming gay.  They don’t try to pass laws removing the rights of heterosexuals.  They don’t try to take our tax money to support their “gay-based initiatives” and their meeting places.  They don’t try to change the textbooks to say that biology is a theory, not a fact, and that homosexuality is actually our true state.  They don’t protest at heterosexual marriages or depict straights as unnatural, sick people.  I could go on and on here.

I am perfectly happy to tolerate any belief or lifestyle that does not depict mine as amoral and wrong, that does not try to turn the clock back on scientific achievements where my children’s education is concerned, and that does not preach hatred of certain other groups.  Can you honestly say the same?

Indeed, elwedriddsche.  We’ve had many discussions about who the True Christians^™ might be.  Her 15 year old cousin, who emailed her a long, scripture-ific plea for her to “turn away from Satin and be washed in the blud of Jesus?” The hoity-toity Christian mom who demanded my daughter’s 2nd grade school carnival booth be changed from fortune-telling gypsies to something else, otherwise the school would HAVE to allow the sanctimonious cunt to put up a booth and hand out bible tracts - or face litigation?  The kids that call her a Satanist and tell her she’s going to spend eternity in a lake of fire because she wears a pentagram ring her grandmother gave her?  They all claim to be True Christians

I'd guess the most Christ-like believer my child and I have ever known is a lesbian minister friend of mine.  It was a pleasure to discuss with my daughter how this pure-hearted woman, truly a servant of Christ, is seen by True Christians^™ as the Devil’s own, guaranteed to roast forever in the bowels of hell for being born gay.  Oh the maternal joy to hear my daughter’s take on such nonsense: “I see… so they made up a God who doesn’t like gay people.  That’s just stupid!  First they say, ‘Jesus loves everyone,’ then they add on, ‘except the homos, that is,’ right?”

Right, my beloved little heathen!